CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME VII


Monday, the 3rd, January 1949.

The next amendment is No. 1381. I find this is ofsimilar import to 1383, 1384,1385 and right up to 1392. Allthese amendments may therefore be considered together.

Amendment No. 1381 standing in the name of ShriPrabhudayal Himatsingka may be moved.

Shri Prabhudayal Himatsingka (West Bengal: General): I am not moving my amendment.

(Amendments Nos. 1381 to 1394 were not moved.)

Prof. K. T. Shah: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg tomove:

"That for clause (3) of article 67, the following besubstituted:

(3) All members of the Council of States shall beelected. Each constituent State shall elect 5members by votes of adult citizens."

Sir, this is in consonance with the general principle I am advocating, namely, that the Legislature shall beconstituted shall be constituted only by electedrepresentatives election being by whatever method you mayagree to.

Secondly, that, in the Council of States, allconstituent parts of the Union--call them States. Units orwhat you like--shall be equally represented. Whereas in thelower House, or the House of the People you may haverepresentation in accordance with number, in the Upper Houseor the Council of States the representation is more of theterritory of the Unit, of the special interests of the Unitor region, than of the people pure and simple.

And these, also, I would suggest should be electedrather than nominated, co-opted, or chosen by any othermethod. The whole body should be elected; and none butelected representatives should come there.

Next, the representatives, so far as they arerepresentatives of the Units, should be equal in numberamongst themselves--that is to say, for each State the samenumber be returned,--so that it will bring some sense of areal Federation working, rather than of discrimination ordifferentiation as between the Units. On these grounds Icommend my proposition to the House.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1396 is formal and istherefore disallowed.

(Amendment No. 1397 was not moved.)

Mr. Vice-President: The first part of amendment No.1398 and amendment No. 1402 are identical. I can allow thefirst part of amendment No. 1398 to be moved.

Mr. Mohd. Tahir (Bihar: Muslim): What about the secondpart?

Mr. Vice-President: That will come at the proper place.

Mr. Mohd. Tahir: Sir, I beg to move:

"That in sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of article 67,the word `elected' where it occurs for the second time bedeleted."

I have moved this amendment because I think that thereshould not be any distinction between the elected membersand the nominated members so far as the election of therepresentatives in the Council of States is concerned.Nominated Members, as soon as they become Members of the House, should enjoy all the rights and privileges of aMember as such.

I had moved a similar amendment in respect of theelection of the President of India, but in that respect the House adopted that only the elected members should beallowed to vote for the President of India. In that casethere was some meaning to it, because if a President whonominates certain members to ParlI ament again stands for thePresidentship election, there would have been somedifficulty for the members nominated by the said Presidentin exercising their votes. But so far as the election of therepresentatives of the Council of States is concerned, I donot think that there is any reason why the nominated Membersof the Legislature as such should be debarred from voting in the election of their representatives in the Council ofStates. I hope that taking all these facts intoconsideration the House will accept my amendment.

Mr. Vice-President: Now you may move the second part of the amendment. They will be voted upon separately. Do youwant amendment No. 1402, which is identical, also to be putto vote?

Mr. Mohd. Tahir: Yes.

Mr. Vice-President: You may move the second part ofamendment No. 1398.

Mr. Mohd. Tahir: Sir, I beg to move:

"That in sub-clause (a) of

clause (3) of article 67 thewords `Legislative Assembly' be substituted for the words`Lower House'."

In this connection I would require the specialattention of my honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar. I have movedthis amendment because in article 148 of the DraftConstitution the Legislature of the States has been definedas the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council; and there is no such term as has been suggested in article 67,that is to say, the `Lower House'. In this connection I think my Friend Dr. Ambedkar was more concious than myselfbecause while we were discussing article 43 he introduced anexplanation, namely, that "in this and the next succeedingarticle the expression `the Legislature of the States'means, where the Legislature is bicameral the Lower House of the Legislature." This explanation, Sir, he had to add whilewe were discussing article 43, which means that thisexplanation is meant for article 43 and article 44 only.Therefore, Sir, in order to clear the position in the article under discussion, I think there is no otheralternative but to accept my amendment; or I would requestmy Friend, Dr. Ambedkar to introduce an explanation as hehas done in article 43, because unless it is done, themeaning of the article will not be clear, and I hope, Sir,this would be duly considered and accepted by the House.

Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur (Madras: Muslim): Mr.Vice-President Sir, I beg to move:

"That in sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of article 67,for the words `Lower House', the words `two Houses' besubstituted."

The sub-clause as proposed to be amended by thisamendment reads like this:

"67 (3) (a) where the Legislature of the State has twoHouses, be elected by the elected members of both the Houses."

I do not see any reason, Sir, why, when there are twoHouses in the Provincial Legislature, the elected members of the Upper House should be excluded from taking part in theelection. I am not thinking of those who may be nominated to the Upper House. I am urging that those members of the UpperHouse who have been elected may be allowed to take part in the election. On principle, there is no reason at all whythe elected members of the Upper House should be excluded.That is the reason why I move this amendment.

I have got one other amendment. No. 1407, Sir. I maybe allowed to move that also.

Mr. Vice-President: There are three amendments ofsimilar import . One is amendment No. 1400, the other is No.1403 and the last is No. 1407. Amendment No. 1407 seems tome to be the most comprehensive. Mr. Baig can move thatamendment.

Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur: The other amendmentthat stands in my name is Amendment No. 1407.

Sir, I beg to move:

"That in clause (3) of article 67, the following newsub-clause (d) be added:-

(d) The election under sub-clause (a) and (b)shall be in accordance with the system ofproportional representation by means of thesingle transferable vote."

Shri Mahavir Tyagi (United Provinces: General): On aPoint of order, there is a similar amendment standing in myname just before that of Mr. Baig. I have not been allowedto move that amendment.

Mr. Vice-President: Because the three amendments havebeen moved together, namely, Nos. 1400, 1403 and 1407, asthe honourable Members will find by reference to papersalready circulated and in my view, Amendment No. 1407 seemsto be the most comprehensive. The honourable Member willhave his chance later on.

Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur: I am glad that someMembers are of the same opinion as I am with regard to themethod of election, particularly mu honourable friend, Mr,Mahavir Tyagi, and I am glad when we come to this part of the Constitution Mr, Mahavir Tyagi has changed his mind. Iremember quite well when I moved for the election of thePresident in the earlier part of the Constitution, Mr.Mahavir Tyagi was, I should say uncharitable.Shri Mahavir Tyagi: That was the President's election this is of the Council of States.

Mr. Vice-President: I think it would be better tosubstitute the word emphatic".

Mehboob Ali Baig

Sahib Bahadur: Perhaps he did notunderstand. But now he finds that the method of election bya system of proportional representation by means of thesingle transferable vote is not injurious for the solidarityof the country. I remember at that time

Mr. Vice-President: May I suggest that instead ofmaking remarks on the past attitude of Mr. Mahavir Tyagi,another honourable Member of this House, the honourableMember may proceed with his own amendment. Probably thatwould save the time of the house.

Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur: Now, Sir, this Househas already accepted the system of election under article55, that is, in regard to the election of the President.

"The Vice-President shall be elected by the members ofboth Houses of ParlI ament assembled at a joint meeting inaccordance with the system of proportional by means of thesingle transferable vote and the coting at such electionshall be by secret ballot."

Therefore, Sir, there is nothing new or extraordinaryin mu proposing this method of election.

Further, Sir, may I refer to the opinions of certainauthorities who are competent to speak on this matter whichare referred to in the Constitutional Advisor? The opinionsof persons who are competent to speak on this method ofproportional representation are these:

"One of the best safeguards for minority rights andinterests is the system of election by proportionalrepresentation with the single transferable vote (P.R) whichhas already been adopted in a large number of countries;Switzerland is a conspicuous example:

`In the past there were bitter differences,religious and cantonal. But for a long periodof years now, government has been stable. Theresponsibility for forming a government restsupon parlI ament; its first duty is to electan Executive. The Swiss parlI ament is electedby proportional representation.'

The late Lord Howard of Penrith, who was Britain'srepresentative at Berne, Stockholm, Madrid and Washington,and who made a study of the working of governments, wrote asfollows:

"Two fundamental requirements of democracy, first thatGovernment should be an expression of the people's will andsecondly that it should work both smoothly and stably andnot be subject to frequent crises, seem to have been metmore successfully by the Swiss system than by any other in the world."

Another authority has stated like this:

"Sir Samuel Hoare addressing his constituents inChelsea expressed the view that representative Governmentmight function more satisfactorily in Europe if the Swissrather than the British form of Government was adopted. TheNew York review Free World organised an unofficial roundtable discussion on the future of Italy. In this discussionColonel Raudolfo Pacciardi, an active member of the Left,said: The frequent crises of the Latin democracies, whichhave so greatly discredited representative democracy, can beavoided by a constitutional form like that which has beendeveloped in Switzerland."

This was issued by the Proportional RepresentationSociety in June 1945.

Therefore, this method of election represents theexpression of the people's will and it will be more stableas well as responsible. My submission is that all the fearsthat some people might entertain that this method ofelection would involve the country in sections and it willgo against the solidarity of the country are false. Somepeople who are really communally minded smell a rat inanything in regard to this kind of representation; that isunjustifiable. This is the most scientific and mostdemocratic method of representing the people of a country ina democratic system of Government. I, therefore, commendthese two amendments, firstly that the elected members of the Upper House also should be allowed to take part in theelection and secondly that the method of election should beby this system, that is proportional representation by meansof the single transferable vote. Sir, I move.

Mr. Vice-President: The other two amendments which havebeen dealt with together are amendments Nos. 1400 and 1406.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: Sir,

these are my amendments and Ibeg to submit that I may be allowed to move these amendmentsseparately so that the House may decide on the issuesseparately.

Mr. Vice-President: Come to the mike please.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: Sir, I beg to move:

"That at the end of sub-clause (a) of clause (3) ofarticle 67, the following words be added:

`in accordance with the system of proportionalrepresentation by means of the singletransferable vote."

Sir, while moving this amendment.

Mr. Vice-President: I am afraid I have not given thehonourable Member permission to move his amendments. I wantto know the reason why he wants to move them. They are ofsimilar import as amendment No. 1407.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: That is perfectly true. My reasonis the House can decide the issue in one case in one way andin the other, in another way. Therefore. I want to give thefullest opportunity to the House.

Mr. Vice-President: I can give the honourable Member anopportunity of making his point in the general discussion;but I cannot depart from the convention which has alreadybeen established. His two amendments will be put to vote oneafter the other.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: Shall I have my say now, Sir?

Mr. Vice-President: I shall certainly give thehonourable Member an opportunity in the general discussion.

Mr. Vice President: Amendment No. 1401, Mr. NaziruddinAhmad.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg tomove:

"That at the end of sub-clause (a) of clause (3) ofarticle 67 the word `and' be added and the word `and' at theend of sub-clause (b) be omitted."

I also beg to move amendment No. 1404:

"That sub-clause (c) of clause (3) of article 67 beomitted."

Sir, so far as this sub-clause is concerned, itintroduces some anomalies. Clause (3) where this sub-clauseoccurs relates to the representation of the States having alegislature with two Houses. Sub-clause (b) deals withrepresentation of States having a legislature with oneHouse.

Mr. Vice-President: Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, you mightmove amendment No. 1404 also.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Yes, Sir. That is the amendmentwhich I have also moved.

Mr. Vice-President: And one speech.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sub-clause (c) deals withrepresentation of States having no legislature. States herecomprise the Provinces, the Chief Commissioner's Provincesand the Indian States. All the Provinces, however, havelegislatures and they will have legislatures too in thefuture too in the future constitution. Sub-clause (c) therefore really affects the States which arenow called Indian States and the Chief Commissioners'Provinces. Where there is no legislature, power is beinggiven to the ParlI ament to prescribe or determine the mannerof choosing their representatives. I submit this would be anencroachment on the rights of those States--specially theIndian States. These States having no legislature have adistrict identity, a modified kind of sovereignty. Dr.Ambedkar conceded the other day that they have some kind ofsovereign rights, though not full sovereign rights. The merefact that they have no legislature is no ground why theirrepresentation should be left to be determined by theParlI ament. If they have no legislature for the time beingthere must be a President, or a Raj Pramukh or someauthority who or which would function in the State. If thebusiness of the State, its administration its executive and the judiciary and other matters could be carried on by someauthority, that authority should also deal with andprescribe how the representatives of that State should cometo the House. Therefore this sub-clause is anomalous.ParlI ament may perhaps come in when there is a gap whenthere is really a constitutional vacuum in the State. Theonly void that is contemplated is the absence of any Houseof Legislature. There is not a political vacuum. But, stillthe State may have an organised Government without alegislature and their representation should really be amatter for them. It really is a question of the terms of theAccession. In fact, if a State having no legislature

hasacceded on certain terms, then sub-clause (c), to be validmust come within those terms. As I see it, sub-clause (c)goes beyond the terms of Accession, and is an encroachmentupon the sovereign or semi-sovereign rights of these States.I therefore submit that ParlI ament would not be entitled todeal with their representation. It would be beyond itscompetence. The States should be left to decide their ownrepresentation. In fact, it is due to them that they shoulddecide their own representation. A legislature is desirablebut by no means a constitutional necessity. The fact that they have no Legislature does not debar their expressingthemselves as to how they will be represented.

In these circumstances, I submit that sub-clause (c)should be deleted. But I also feel that some appropriateprovision recognizing the right of States themselves havingno legislatures to determine their own representation may besubstituted. In the shortness of time at my disposal I couldnot submit an alternative proposition but the question isone of principle. If the principle is acceptable to the House, a suitable substitute may easily be introduced. As atpresent advised, I submit that ParlI ament would not be alegal and constitutional substitute for the authority of the States whatever be the form of Government or the nature of the authority which really functions.

With these few words, I submit that my amendment shouldbe accepted.

(Amendment No. 1405 was not moved.)

Mr. Vice-President: No. 1406 disallowed as verbal.

(Amendment No. 1409 was not moved.)

No. 1410 is disallowed.

I would like to put one suggestion before the House,before the general discussion begins. It is this. I havebroken many of the Rules of Procedure, some throughignorance others deliberately. I am going to break aconvention already established, but I think I ought to getthe permission of the House. This article falls under twoseparate board divisions. The first four clauses deal withrepresentation in the council of States and the last fewprovisions deal with representation in the House of the House of the People. My suggestion is that first of all wediscuss the first part, i.e., the first four clauses dealingwith representation in the council of States. The amendmentsrelating to these clauses have been moved one after another.Now I want to give an opportunity to honourable Members totake part in the general discussion on these four clauses.After that I intend to call upon Dr. Ambedkar to

reply and after that only these amendments will be put tovote. Then we shall take up the amendments concerned with the clauses (5) onwards. Then the amendments will be moved,and then again a similar procedure will be followed. Butthis procedure is only for this clause. Have I the permission of the House?

Honourable Members: Yes.

Mr. Vice-President: Now these four clauses are open forgeneral discussion. I call upon Mr. Rohini Kumar Chaudhari.

Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhari: (Assam: General): Mr.Vice-President, Sir, I wish to say a few words on thisarticle. My honourable Friend Moulvi Mohammad Tahir hasmoved an amendment objecting to the use of the word `LowerHouse'. Practically speaking as is known to everybody, thelower House means really the Upper House. That is the Housewhich has a more important voice and has the upper hand in the administration of the province. Similarly the House ofCommons is the House of the Commoners and the House of Lordsis the House of the Lords. All the same the House of Commonsexercises more powers than the House of Lords and nobody fora moment suggests that the name should be changed for thatpurpose only. Further more the use of the word `Lower House'connotes that there must be an Upper House in the sameprovince. Now so far as the Upper House is concerned, itsmembers have been denied many privileges--for instance, onewould have normally expected that in selecting or inelecting members of the Council of States. their compeers,the member of the Upper House should certainly have a voice.Because after all the birds of the same feather

flocktogether and there is a sort of sympathy between members of the Upper House in a province and the members of the Councilof State in the center but, Sir, when you are not givingthem the privilege which is exercised by the ordinarymembers of the Lower House or the Assembly, you must consolthem by calling them members of the Upper House. Thereforefrom that point of view also the words `Lower House' shouldbe allowed to remain where they are firstly because theLower House does not mean a House of Lower dignity but ithas to be used for purposes of expediency; and secondly, sirso long as we think that we must have a second legislaturein a Province, there should be one which is called `UpperHouse' because as a matter of courtesy we should call themUpper House because we are not giving them many privileges.

Then I also want to say a few words on the amendment ofProf. Shah. It is certainly democratic to expect thatmembers of any House should be elected but there is onedifficulty in the way. If you leave the representationentirely to election in a Council of state the class ofpeople whom we want to nominate by this article, i.e., theclass of people who must have some special knowledge inagriculture, fishery, administration and social service,these people generally fight shy of election and will neverbe able to come to the House and therefore it is necessaryin the exigencies of circumstances that some provisionshould be left for nomination so that the House may get theadvantage of people who would normally not like to enterinto a contest of election and at the same time whoseservices to the Legislature would be very useful.

With these words, Sir, I support the first part of theartical.

Shri R. k. Sidhwa: Mr. Vice-Prisedent, sir, thisarticle so far as it relates to the Council of Statescontains two parts, one is clause 1 (a) which has beenamended by Dr. Ambedkar by reducing fifteen members which hehad originally suggested for nomination to twelve membersand in clause (2) where the Drafting Committee had suggestedabout 14 categories under which the nomination had to be made, he has moved an amendment of 4categories. Now this is the most contentious clause in thisarticle, which ought to require the serious attention andconsideration of the House. There is an election and alsonomination in the clause. I have stood all along my wholelife for election in all legislatures and public bodies andlocal bodies.

Not that I do not realise that conditions have changedtoday, but I do feel that even under the changed conditions,the power that is vested in the President may be misused, Imean the power of nomination. This, Sir, is a matter inwhich we cannot challenge the action of the President,because it is a matter which is absolutely within hisdiscretion. A certain person A' may be more desirable to benominated, but according to the President, another person,'B' may be considered more suitable and he may nominate 'B'.The House cannot, and no one can challenge that choice ornomination of the President. No one can say that thePresident can be impeached because he has done something inbad faith or anything of that kind. I am afraid, Sir, that there will be a good deal of bickerings, that while ablepersons are available, some favourites, or some persons whoare in the good books of the President or some persons whoare always around the President, are nominated. Humannature being what it is, such a thing is quite possible. I am not stating something new, for persons above these thingsare exceptional. The President has to take intoconsideration so many factors when making his selection andat that time, qualifications or merit or service orsacrifices may be set aside or ignored. Therefore, I do feelthat even these nominations should not be there, becausethey will lead to bickerings and out of them bickerings willaccrue. The very fact that while the Drafting Committee hadlaid down some thing like fourteen categories, the Chairmanof the Drafting Committee has now come forward with anamendment seeking to change the number to four, and

also thenumber of amendments moved to this particular article showthe degree of difference of views. One view is that expertswill be required only for a few subjects such as law etc.which are rather technical. But it was asked, why have youleft out health? Sir, I do not attach much importance toLaw. There are many lawyers in this House, and some quite ascompetent as Dr. Ambedkar, if I may be permitted to say so.I am only saying that natural temptations will arise, and they are arising, as is shown by the various amendments thathave been moved. Therefore, I feel, Sir, that thesenominations, in the present juncture, should be done awaywith.

Coming to Prof. K. T. Shah's amendment I wouldcertainly advocate the suggestion or rather the amendmentmoved by him proposing the appointment of advisorycommittees. I do not subscribe to his view completely. Forinstance, I do not agree with the various numbers andvarious other experts he has suggested, such as 25 foragriculture and so on. I do not subscribe to so manycategories coming in. But certainly, I feel that there isscope for advisory committee of experts. For instance, wemay require experts in civic life and also experts in Sociallife. We cannot ignore the civic service amongst thevillages and local bodies. But I do not think such anadvisory body should be provided for in the Constitution. Incase nomination is to be there then as an alternative wemay have these advisory committees on some two or threeselected subjects. But that can be done by ParlI ament byenacting an Act. These persons need not be given undueprominence by making a provision in the Constitution for these advisory committees. According to the conditions thatmay be prevailing at an election, the ParlI ament may decideto have certain experts to be attached to particularministries. But let the House itself be given an opportunityto find out from its own Members whether certain memberswith expert knowledge on particular subjects are available.If that is not possible, then ParlI ament can make a law tohave Advisory Committees appointed. Sir, today you know wehad to seek the advice of economic experts in view of theserious economic conditions in the country. But such anoutside body would not be quite desirable, if we are to geta completely unbiased opinion or advice. But if they are in the service of the State, as suggested, they can be trustedto give unbiased opinions.

I would, however, like to make it quite clear that I amopposed to nominations, and the above suggestion is onlymade as an alternative. We cannot take it, that because we have all been elected, therefore, nomination will beharmless. As I have stated, we cannot expect everybody to beof sterling character, though we wish all of us were ofsterling character, and that when we decide upon a person,we do so without any favouritism or any other suchconsiderations, and select the really best man for theplace.

With this reservation, Sir, I support the article.

Mr. Vice-President: Shri Mahavir Tyagi.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: Sir, I must thank you for giving mean opportunity to express my views on this article. I wantedto move an amendment, but you were pleased to rule that ithas been already covered by an amendment.

Mr. Vice-President: Yes, your amendments Nos. 1400 and1403.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: Yes, Sir. I wanted to say that "inaccordance with the system of proportional representation bymeans of the single transferable vote" may be added at theend of sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of article 67, and in the same manner, similar modifications may be made to sub-clause (b). But I have not much to say now. My Friend Mr.Mahboob Ali Baig has already moved an amendment which I think has the same purpose. But I think the words he hassuggested will not fit in properly with the existing words,and I am afraid Dr. Ambedkar will have to take the troubleof setting right the whole sentence. Mr. Baig has suggestedthat a new sub-clause (d) may be added. Now, sub-clauses(a), (b) and (c) all form part of one big sentence. Thesentence begins like this;

"The

representatives of each State for the time beingspecified in Part I or Part III of the "First Schedule in the Council of States shall.. etc., etc."

and then come sub-clause (a), (b) and (c). If another sub-clause (d) is added, as suggested by my Friend Mr. MahboobAli Baig, it will read:

"(d) The election of the representatives of eachState.... shall be in accordance with the system ofproportional representation, etc., etc."

That will create a construction which is neither herenor there. I feel that my amendment is much more simple anddoes not lead to any such difficulties. I hope my suggestionwill be considered by the House, because if it is accepted,then Dr. Ambedkar will not have to trouble himself about re-adjusting the wording of the article.

Sir, the Council of States will be represented by thosemembers who are sent into the Council by the respectiveStates, by general election, by majority voting, which meansthat the representatives of the States will not have anymember belonging to the minority party of the respectiveStates. It means that, if in the States the election is notby means of the single transferable vote, the minoritieswill have no representation at all in Council of States.Sir, I do not agree with the type of democracy in vogue inEurope. This is the biggest fraud which the politicians of the world are unconsciously practising on the masses. Underthe existing system of elections the masses do not get anyreal representation at all. All democracies based on partybasis are the monopoly of the chosen few, the literates and the intelligentsia. They form parties and the elections arerun on party lines. This being the case, the seats are heldby the same set of people who are borne on the crest of thewave of emotion of the masses. The emotion of the masses is excited, fanned and inflamed by the politicians. So much so, thatwhen people go to the booth, they go swayed by the emotioncreated by the head of the election campaign. When anelector goes to the polling station, he is not his normalself. His emotions are excited and he forgets hisindividuality. Mass mind is a separate entity. When theelector votes under his emotions, he does not exercise hisindividual judgment. He is swayed by the electionpropaganda. Under the circumstances even the representativesof the majority party are not really representatives of thenormal mind of the masses. It is only those members of theminority who are either defeated at the elections or havewon that represent the real spirit of the masses to someextent. They are the only bold ones who have withstood theattacks, hits, and pushes of the majority party and who havekept their heads cool and aloof amidst waves of mass emotioncreated by election propaganda and stuck to theirprinciples. So, those who belong to the minorities should bealways cared for and looked upon as people who hold to theirown opinions staunchly. Therefore, although democracy aspractised in the western countries is a hoax and a fiction,it has survived so long because of the opposition. It is theopposition that reflects the true voice of the people. It isthe opposition that sustains democracy. Were it not forthis, democracy would have long ago crashed and fallendown. I believe in the democracy.....

Mr. Vice-President: The honourable Member's time is up.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: Please give me one more minute,Sir. I assure you I shall be giving useful suggestions.

Mr. Vice-President: But the honourable Members istaking away the democratic right of others to speak.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: According to Mahatma Gandhi realdemocracy is Ram Raj where every one puts himself and allhis power and possession under the supreme control of thegeneral will. Each in fact becomes an indivisible part of the whole body, and indivisible member of the body. Althoughhe acts according to the total will of the people as awhole, even so he obeys himself alone and maintains hisfreedom. Under such a democracy an attack on the individualis a hit on the total body of the people and a hurt on thetotal body is a hurt on

each individual. We have, however,adopted the western model of democracy which I cannot help.There must therefore be parties in our body politics. Let ustherefore give seats in the Council of States to somemembers holding the views of the opposition also. Suchmembers can get elected only if my amendments are accepted.Only then Members who are opposed to the party in power in the States can come in. Whenever high State policy in underdiscussion we can have the advantage of the views of theother side only if they are allowed to come in by thismethod. The Democracy of the western type is based on freeplay of the opposition. Without good opposition thedemocracy will become one legged, it would limp and tumbledown. With these words I hope that my amendments will beaccepted.

Mr. Mohamed Ismail Sahib (Madras: Muslim): Mr. Vice-President, I want to say only a few words and will not takemore than one or two minutes.

Under clause (2) of article 67, the different classesfrom amongst whom the President is to nominate members to the Council of States have been given. In the reason foromitting trade and commerce and industry, the DraftingCommittee says that these people can as well come throughthe general election in view of adult suffrage. Sir, for thesame reason you could have omitted to give representation bynomination also to the classes of the people enumerated insub-clauses (a) to (d). They can also come through generalelections under adult suffrage.

Sir, I do not know that the importance of commerce isin any way less than the importance of the other classes ofpeople enumerated in this clause. Therefore I think it isvery reasonable and fair that trade and commerce also shouldbe included.

Sir, now coming to clause (3), in the various sub-clause, nominated members are being sought to be excludedfrom having anything to do with the election or the choiceof representatives to the Council of States from the States.Sir, if no nomination is provided for at all, that isanother thing and I would have no quarrel at all. But youthink that nomination is necessary and are providing for thenomination of certain people. Then, when you have recognisedthe importance of nominating people and when you haveactually nominated them to the Council of States, it willnot do to discriminate against them. It will not be at allfair to place them at a disadvantage and give them aninferior status. When you have recognised their importanceand nominated them, they must also be treated equally, afterthey have been nominated, with the other members who havebeen elected and who form part of the various bodies.Therefore I am not able to see the reason why these peopleshould be eliminated from having anything to do with theseelections.

Then, Sir, a word with regard to the system ofproportional representation proposed in more than oneamendment to this article. It is said that this system ofelection will lead to fissures and divisions amongst thepeople. But, in reality, it would not be leading to thatresult or effect at all, because people know that under thissystem of election every group of people has got aneffective say in the election. Therefore every group will bedrawn towards the other group. When it is a question ofelection they will be made to work with each other. Theywill be compelled to seek the franchise of every group.Therefore it will really bring the people together insteadof disintegrating them. It will make each group seek thefranchise of other people. Therefore it would really workfor unity rather than for disunity. Sir, I think that theChairman of the Drafting Committee would see thereasonableness of this proposal and would recommend to Housethe acceptance of this system.

Mr. Vice-President: Dr. Ambedkar.

(Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru rose to speak.)

Mr. Vice-President: What is it that you want to say,Pandit Kunzru?

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru: I would like to saysomething about this question of proportional representationbefore Dr. Ambedkar rises to reply.

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi: In the generaldiscussion

only two people have spoken so far, Sir.

Mr. Vice-President: On the whole four people havespoken. But I would allow you to speak, Pandit Kunzru, butplease confine yourself to the question of proportionalrepresentation only.

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru: Mr. Vice-President, as ithas been proposed that the members of the Council of Statesshould be elected by the Lower Houses of the provinciallegislatures, it is necessary that a system should be laiddown for the election of the members as would be fair to menholding different views. It has accordingly been suggestedthat in their election the system of proportionalrepresentation by means of the single transferable voteshould be used. Honourable Members may be afraid that, ifthis system is accepted, it would mean the introduction ofcommunal electorates by the backdoor. We know the evils ofcommunal electorates. We know that the partition of India isthe direct result of such electorates. We have therefore to be on our guard against any system ofelection that would lead to the maintenance of the old evilin a new form, but let us consider whether the acceptance of the suggestion that has been made would in practice amountto the election of the members of the Council of States bypeople belonging to separate communities. In order toclarify our minds, it is necessary for us to consider howthe members of the provincial legislative assemblies will beelected. They will not be elected on the basis of communalelectorates. The electorates will be mixed. They will haveconsist of men of all communities, and the men returned bymixed electorates are not likely to be imbued with communalvirulence. It should not be supposed that therepresentatives of any community would be able to get inmerely by the votes of the members of that community. Theywill have to seek the suffrages of mixed electorates and itmay therefore be supposed--we may take it for granted--thatif they want to maintain their position, if they want to bere-elected, they will have to follow a policy that is notbased on religious or communal divisions. Now if we get suchmembers in the Lower Houses of the provincial legislatures,is there any reason to fear that if the system ofproportional representation by means of the singletransferable vote were introduced for the election of themembers of the Council of States, the evils of communalelectorates would be maintained or intensified? Sir, weought not to consider this question entirely from the point of view of the representation of different communities. Weought also to consider the need for the representation ofpersons holding views that are not popular, and the methodof proportional representation would enable fairrepresentation to be given to minorities holding viewsdifferent from those of the majority. Unless the system ofproportional representation is introduced, the views thatare unpopular would never be represented. Take, Sir, theelection of members to the Constituent Assembly. There aresome members of this House who do not belong to the Congressand have yet been able to get elected. They have been ableto secure their election because of the existence of themethod of proportional representation with the singletransferable vote for the election of the members of theConstituent Assembly. But for this system no one who was nota Congressman could have been here.

Maulana Hasrat Mohani (United Provinces: Muslim): Hear,hear.

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru: I think therefore that it isdesirable that we should adopt the system of proportionalrepresentation by means of the single transferable vote inconnection with the election of the members of the Councilof States. I need not repeat that these members will beelected by provincial representatives who have not beenreturned on a communal ticket so to say. They will beelected by men who will owe their election to an electoratethat will consist to an overwhelming extent of members of the majority community. There need be no reasonable feartherefore that the election of members of the Council ofStates by means of

proportional representation would meanthe reintroduction of communal electorates with all theevils that they involve. On the contrary, I think that in the changed circumstances this method would enable a fairrepresentation of the views of sections that would otherwisebe overwhelmed and would not be able to make their voiceheard, to be secured.

Mr. Vice-President: Dr. Ambedkar

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. Vice-President,I am agreeable to amendments Nos. 1369, 1375, 1378,1380,1400and 1403. With regard to the last two amendments (Nos. 1400and 1403) those are also covered by an amendment moved byMr. Mahboob Ali Baig. It is amendment No. 1407. I would havebeen glad to accept that amendment but unfortunately, onexamining the text of that amendment, I find that it doesnot fit in with the generality of the language used inclause (3) of article 67. That is the only reason why I prefer to accept amendment No. 1403, becausethe language fits in properly with the language of thearticle.

With regard to the other amendments, I think there areonly there which call for special consideration. One is anamendment by Mr. Kunhiraman. The aim and object........

Mr. Vice-President: It was not moved.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Then I do not thinkI need say anything about it. There remain only two-one isthe amendment of Mr. Kunzru. He was very naturallyconsiderably agitated over the proviso which stood in theDraft Constitution and which provided for the 40 per centrepresentation to representatives of the States. I think it is desirable that I should clear the ground and explain whatexactly was the reason why this proviso was introduced andwhat is the present position. It is quite true that in theGovernment of India Act, it was provided that although the States population formed one-quarter of the total populationof India as it then stood in the Lower House, the States gotrepresentation which was one-third of the total and in theCouncil of States they got two-fifths representation whichwas 40 per cent. That is not the origin as to why thisproviso was introduced in the Draft Constitution. I shouldtherefore like to go back and give the history of thisclause.

Members of the House will remember that this House hadappointed a Committee known as the Union Powers Committee.That Committee recommended a general rule of representation,both for people in British India as well as people in theIndian States and the rule was this: That there should beone seat for every million up to five millions, plus oneseat for every additional two millions. As I said, this wasto be a rule to be applicable both to the provinces as wellas the States. But when the report of the Union PowersCommittee came before the Constituent Assembly forconsideration, it was found that the representatives of the States had moved a large number of amendments to this partof the report of the Union Powers Committee. Great manynegotiations took place between the representatives of theIndian provinces and the representatives of the IndianStates. Consequently, if honourable Members will refer to the debates of the Constituent Assembly for 31st July 1947,my friend and colleague, Mr. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, who movedthe adoption of the Report of the Union Powers Committee,moved an amendment that the States representation shall notexceed 40 per cent. Now that rule had to be adopted orintroduced in the Draft Constitution. So far as I have beenable to examine the proceedings, I believe that this provisoof granting the States 40 per cent representation wasintroduced not so much with the aim of giving them weightagebut because the number of States was so many that it wouldnot have been possible to give representation to every Statewho wanted to enter the Union unless the total of therepresentation granted to the State had been enormouslyincreased. It is in order to bring them within the Unionthat this proviso was introduced. We find now that thesituation has completely changed. Some States have mergedamong themselves and formed a larger Union. Some States havebeen

integrated in British Indian provinces, and a fewStates only have remained in their single individualcharacter. On account of this change, it has not become asnecessary as it was in the original state of affairs toenlarge the representation granted to the States. becausethose areas which are now being integrated in the BritishIndian provinces do not need separate representation. Theywill be represented through the provinces. Similarly, the States which have merged would not need separaterepresentation each for itself. The totality ofrepresentation granted to the merged States would be the representation which would be shared byevery single unit which originally stood aloof.Consequently, in the amendment which I have introduced, andwhich speaks of Schedule 3-A, which unfortunately is notbefore the House, but will be introduced as an amendmentwhen we come to the schedules, what is proposed to be done is this:

We have removed this 40 per cent ratio granted to the States and there will be equality of representation in theUpper Chamber, both to the Indian State as well as to theProvinces, and I am in a position to give some figures,which, although they are not exact for the moment, aresufficient to give a picture of what is likely to be thecontents of Schedule 3-A.

According to Schedule 3-A, the provinces will have 141seats. The Chief Commissioners' provinces will have two and the States will have seventy altogether. Consequently, thetotal of elected members to the Upper Chamber will be 213.Add to that twelve nominated seats. That would bring thetotal to 225. Our clause, as amended, says that the totalstrength of the Council of States shall not exceed 250. Youwill thus see that the allocation of seats which it isproposed to make in Schedule 3-A satisfies two conditions,in the first place it removes weightage and secondly, itbrings the total of the House within the maximum that hasbeen prescribed by the amendment that I have made. I thinkthe House will find that this is a very satisfactoryposition.

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru: May I ask my honourableFriend whether the States in Part III of the first Schedulehave been represented in accordance with their population?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Yes, everybody willnow get population ratio.

Then I come to the second amendment--No. 1377 by Prof.K. T. Shah. Prof. K. T. Shah proposes that there should be acouncil of the representatives of agriculture, industry,commerce and other special interests created by statute. Itwill be a permanent body of people. The States shall berequired to give them salaries, allowances, and the duty ofthis council, as proposed by Prof. K. T. Shah, is that itshall have the statutory duty of giving advice toGovernment, and the Government will have the statutoryobligation of consulting this body, and it shall not bepermissible for the Government, I take it, to introduce anymeasure which on the face of it does not bear theenforcement that the statutory body has been consulted withregard to the contents of that Bill. I believe that is thepurpose of Prof. K. T. Shah's amendment.

There are various objections to this. In the firstplace anyone who has held any portfolio in the Government ofIndia or in the Provincial Governments will know that thisis the normal method which the Government of India and theProvincial Governments adopt before they finalise theirlegislative measures: there is no proposal brought forth bythe Government of India in which the Government of India hasnot taken sufficient steps to consult organised opiniondealing with that particular matter. It seems to me that this provision which is a matter of common course is hardlynecessary to be put in the constitution. I therefore thinkthat from that point of view it is unnecessary.

Then I should like to tell the House that it isproposed that at a later stage I should bring in anamendment which would permit the President to nominate threepersons either to the Council of States or to the House of the People who shall be experts with regard to any

matterwhich is being dealt with by any measure introduced byGovernment. If it is a matter of commerce, some person whohas knowledge and information and who is an expert in thatparticular branch of the subject dealt with by the Bill,will be appointed by the President either to the Council of States or to theLower House. He shall continue to be a member of the legislature until the Bill is disposed of; he shall have theright to address the House, but he shall not have the rightto vote. It is through that amendment that the DraftingCommittee proposes to introduce into the House such expertknowledge as the Legislature at any particular moment mayrequire. That justifies, as I said, the rejection of Prof.K. T. Shah's amendment; and also the other amendments whichinsisted that the other clauses of this article requiringthat agriculture, industry and so on be also represented,become unnecessary. Because, whenever any such expertassistance is necessary, this provision will be found amplysufficient to carry out that particular purpose. HonourableMembers might remember that in the 1919 Act when Diarchy wasintroduced in the Provinces a similar provision wasintroduced in the then Government of India Act whichpermitted provincial Governors to nominate experts to the House to deal with particular measures. Sir, I suppose and Ibelieve that this particular proposal which I shall tablebefore the House through an amendment will be sufficient tomeet the requirements of the case.

Shri R. K. Sidhwa: Will the nomination clause remain?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Yes.

Mr. Vice-President: I shall now put amendment No. 1379to vote. The question is:

"That clause (2) of article 67 be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That clause (4) of article 67 be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1369 of the List of Amendments,in the proposed clause (1) of article 67, for the word `two'the word 'one' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1369 of the List of Amendments,sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of article 67 be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1369 of the List of Amendments,in sub-clause (a) of the proposed clause (1) of article 67,for the words 'twelve members' the words `not more than 6per cent, of the total number of members of the House' besubstituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: I shall put the short noticeamendment of Sardar Hukam Singh to vote. The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1369 of the List of Amendments,in sub-clause (a) of the proposed clause (1) of article 67,for the words, `in the manner provided' the words 'fromamongst the categories of persons illustrated' besubstituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That for clause (1) of article 67, the following besubstituted:

`(1) The Council of States shall consist of not morethan two hundred and fifty members of whom--

(a) twelve members shall be nominated by the Presidentin the manner provided in clause (2) of this article; and

(b) the remainder shall be representative of the States'."

Mr. Vice-President: I shall put amendment No. 1375,standing in the name of Dr. Ambedkar, to vote.

It reads:

"That the proviso to clause (1) of article 67 bedeleted."

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi: On a point of Order,Sir. Amendment No. 1375 is out of order in view of the factthat we have already adopted amendment No. 1369 which is asubstitution of the clause including the proviso. Theproviso has been omitted now by the acceptance of the newclause. There is no point in having an amendment aboutsomething which is not in existence.

Mr. Vice-President: Then I shall not put it to vote.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That to clause (1-a) of article 67 as now moved, thefollowing words be added:

`Provided that the

ratio of the total number of representatives of the `States for the timebeing specified in Part III of the FirstSchedule to their total population shall notexceed the ratio of the total number of representatives of the States for the timebeing specified in Parts I and II of thatSchedule to the total population of suchStates.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1378 of the List of Amendmentsfor the proposed clause (1-a) of article 67, the followingbe substituted:

`(1-a) The allocation of seats to representatives of the States in the Council of States shall be based on thefollowing principles:

(i) one representative for every millionpopulation up to the first seven millionpopulation in each State in Schedule I,provided that no State shall have less thanone representative in the Council of States;

(ii) one representative for every two millionpopulation after the first seven millions.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1378 of the List of Amendments,in the proposed clause (1-a) of article 67, for the words`in accordance with the provisions in that behalf containedin Schedule III-B' the words `on the basis of equalrepresentation to each of the component States, the numberof which representation shall in no case be more than three'be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1378 of the List of Amendments,after the proposed clause (1-a) of article 67, the followingnew clause (1-b) be inserted:

`(1-b) Steps should be taken to see that, as faras possible, men from different units arerepresented.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That the following new clause be added after clause(1) of article 67:

`(1-a) The allocation of seats to representativesof the States in the Council of States shallbe in accordance with the provisions in thatbehalf contained in Schedule III-B.'"

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That the proviso to clause (1) of article 67 bedeleted and the following new clause be added after clause(1):

`(1-a) ParlI ament may by law establish aconsultative Council of Representatives ofAgriculture (25), Industry (15), Commerce(10), Mining, Forestry and Engineering (10),Public Utilities (5), Social Services (5),"Economists (5), to advise ParlI ament and theCouncil of Ministers on all matters policyaffecting Agriculture, Industry, Commerce,Mining, Forestry, Engineering, PublicUtilities and Social Services; and prepare orscrutinise proposals for legislationconcerning any of these items.

Explanation.--The number given in the bracketsafter each group is the total number of representatives from each section

Members of this Council shall have, individuallyor collectively, no administrative orexecutiveduties, functions, orresponsibilities. Every member of thisCouncil shall be paid such salaries,emoluments, or allowances as ParlI ament mayfrom time to time provide.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1380 of the List of Amendments,in the proposed clause (2) of article 67, for the words'special knowledge or practical experience' the words 'realknowledge of or actual devotion for', and for the words'Letters, art, science and social services' the words'History of ancient Indian Philosophy and Culture, art andscience and social services towards reconstruction of"Introspective India"' be substituted respectively."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1380 of the List of Amendments,in the proposed clause (2) of article 67, after the word`science' the words `philosophy, religion, law' beinserted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1380 of the List of Amendments,at the end of the proposed clause (2) of article 67, thewords

commencing 'Letters, art, etc.' be numbered as sub-clause (a) of that clause and the following new sub-clausebe added thereafter:

`(b) journalism, commerce, industries, law.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That for clause (2) of article 67, the following besubstituted:

`(2) The members to be nominated by the President undersub-clause (a) of Clause (1) of this article shall consistof persons having special knowledge or practical experiencein respect of such matters as the following, namely:

Letters, art, science and social services.'"

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That for clause (3) of article 67, the following besubstituted:

`(3) All members of the Council of States shall beelected. Each constituent State shall elect 5members by votes of adult citizens.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That is sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of article 67,the word 'elected' where it occurs for the second time bedeleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in sub-clause (b) of clause (3) of article 67,the word 'elected' where it occurs for one second time bedeleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of article 67,the words 'Legislative Assembly' be substituted for thewords 'Lower House'."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of article 67,for the words 'Lower House' the words 'two Houses' besubstituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (3) of article 67, the following newsub-clause (d) be added:

`(d) The election under sub-clause (a) and (b)shall be in accordance with the system ofproportional representation by means of thesingle transferable vote.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That at the end of sub-clause (a) of clause (3) ofarticle 67, the following words be added:

`in accordance with the system of proportionalrepresentation by means of the singletransferable vote.'"

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in sub-clause (b) of clause (3) of article 67,after the words 'of that House' the words 'in accordancewith the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote' be inserted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That at the end of sub-clause (a) of clause (3) ofarticle 67, the word 'and ' be added and the word 'and ' atthe end of sub-clause (b) be omitted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That sub-clause (c) of clause (3) of article 67 beomitted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: It thus appears that there arealtogether 5 amendments which have been carried, namely Nos.1369, 1378, 1380,1400 and 1403.

I am now in a position to make a formal announcement to the House that we definitely adjourn from the 8th of thismonth, but we do sit on the 8th Saturday. The House nowstands aljourned to 10 A.M. tomorrow.

The Assembly then adjourned till Ten of the Clock onTuesday, the 4th January 1949.